Why does Brigador Killers reject explicit morality systems?
Brigador Killers avoids traditional morality systems because the developers believe explicit narrative condemnation of player actions feels hypocritical and intrusive. Jack Monahan, an artist and designer at Stellar Jockeys, argues that games which explicitly tell a player they have done something 'bad' often fail to respect the player's agency. He cites Spec Ops: The Line as a notable example where the narrative attempts to force a sense of guilt upon the player, a tactic he finds disconnected from the actual act of playing. For Monahan, being told how to feel after a violent act feels like the game is saying, 'Look what you did,' when the player is simply playing the role they were given.
According to Monahan, the goal is to provide a role for the player to inhabit without the game subsequently lecturing them on the ethics of that role. The studio prefers to let the mechanics drive the experience. For instance, rather than a cutscene explaining the consequences of a decision, the developers want players to realize the weight of their actions through the natural progression of the game's systems. This approach seeks to move away from 'ticking buttons in a spreadsheet' and toward a more visceral, systemic form of storytelling where interesting systems tell you more than a story ever could.
How do 1990s PC classics influence the design of Brigador Killers?
The design philosophy of Brigador Killers is deeply rooted in the 'show, don't tell' approach found in 1990s PC gaming. The Monahan brothers look to titles where ethical complexity arises from the game's internal logic rather than scripted dialogue. Jack Monahan points to the original XCOM as a primary example; in that game, the player might realize they are engaging in morally grey behavior—such as selling alien remains on the black market—not because a character reprimands them, but because it is a logical extension of the game's economic and survival mechanics. There is no cutscene where a character expresses disbelief at the sale of corpses; instead, the player realizes, 'We got to keep the lights on,' through the sheer reality of managing the game's systems.
The lineage of systemic storytelling
This method of storytelling relies on the player making a connection between their tactical choices and the broader implications of the game world. When a player interacts with a system, the consequences are presented as factual outcomes of the simulation. This allows for a 'personal revelation' that feels earned. By providing the tools and the world but withholding the moral commentary, Stellar Jockeys hopes to replicate the sense of emergent narrative that defined an era of PC gaming where the player's agency was the primary driver of the story. This creates a space where the player is responsible for their own ethical compass, rather than following a pre-determined path of 'good' or 'evil.'
What role does Crusader: No Remorse play in the developer's vision?
Crusader: No Remorse serves as a major inspiration for the team, particularly regarding how unprompted player actions can lead to profound psychological impact. Hugh Monahan, a designer at Stellar Jockeys, shares a personal anecdote about playing the game as a teenager. He describes how a seemingly routine encounter with a civilian—who reacted to his presence by sounding an alarm—led to an involuntary act of violence that left him feeling deeply unsettled. He recalls being too young to understand the politics initially, seeing only a 'Boba Fett-looking guy' running around, but as he matured, the weight of his actions became impossible to ignore.
This experience was powerful because the game did not tell him he was a villain; the realization came entirely from his own behavior and the immediate, unscripted reaction of the game world. Hugh Monahan notes that this 'unprompted' nature is what makes such moments stick. In Brigador Killers, this lineage is visible in the inclusion of civilians. However, unlike some modern titles that might include a moralizing dialogue tree after a civilian death, Brigador Killers remains laconic. In fact, the game provides a $50 reward for every civilian kill, a mechanic so detached from moral judgment that some players initially reported it as a bug. The game does not comment on the act; it simply processes the transaction.
How does the game distinguish between forced guilt and systemic consequence?
The distinction between forced guilt and systemic consequence lies in the presence of player choice and the withholding of information. While the developers avoid 'railroading' players into feeling bad, they do not shy away from presenting difficult situations. The core idea is that if a player has an alternative path or a way to mitigate harm, the weight of choosing the violent path is much greater. This is a nuance echoed in critiques of Spec Ops: The Line, where the most impactful moments occurred when players realized they had missed a non-violent option that was obscured by the game's presentation—such as firing above a crowd to scatter them rather than firing into them.
By focusing on systems rather than scripts, Stellar Jockeys creates a space where the player is responsible for their own ethical compass. If a player chooses to prioritize efficiency and profit—such as the $50 reward for civilian casualties—the game does not intervene with a lecture. Instead, it allows the player to live with the mechanical reality of those choices. This creates a bracing, laconic sense of ambiguity that defines the experience of Brigador Killers, forcing players to confront their own motivations within the simulation rather than being told how to react to them.
FAQ: Brigador Killers and Game Morality
How does Brigador Killers handle civilian casualties?
The game treats civilian casualties as a mechanical element rather than a narrative event. Instead of providing moral commentary or cutscenes, the game rewards the player with $50 for every civilian kill. This design choice is intended to let the player decide their own ethical boundaries through gameplay.
What is the main inspiration for the storytelling in Brigador Killers?
The developers are heavily inspired by 1990s PC classics like Crusader: No Remorse and Syndicate. They aim to emulate the 'show, don't tell' style of these games, where moral complexity arises from systemic consequences and player actions rather than scripted moralizing dialogue.
Why do the developers avoid morality systems?
Stellar Jockeys avoids explicit morality systems because they believe they can feel hypocritical and intrusive. The developers prefer to let players experience the consequences of their actions through the game's mechanics, allowing for organic, personal realizations rather than forced emotional responses.
How does the game differ from Spec Ops: The Line in its approach to ethics?
While Spec Ops: The Line often uses narrative beats to explicitly tell the player they have done something wrong, Brigador Killers relies on systemic consequences. The developers want to avoid 'railroading' players into feeling guilt, preferring that any ethical weight comes from the player's own choices.
What does 'show, don't tell' mean in the context of Brigador Killers?
'Show, don't tell' refers to presenting the consequences of player actions through the game world and its systems rather than through dialogue or cutscenes. This allows players to arrive at their own moral conclusions based on how the simulation reacts to their behavior.
Key takeaways
- Stellar Jockeys avoids explicit morality systems to maintain player agency and avoid didactic storytelling.
- The game emulates 1990s PC classics by using systemic consequences instead of scripted moral lectures.
- Civilian deaths in Brigador Killers are treated as mechanical events, even providing a $50 reward.
- The design philosophy prioritizes 'show, don't tell' to encourage organic player reflection.
The future of systemic storytelling in indie action games
The approach taken by Stellar Jockeys with Brigador Killers represents a significant pushback against the trend of highly prescriptive morality meters in modern gaming. By leaning into the mechanical ambiguity found in retro classics, the developers are betting that players find more meaning in the consequences of their own unprompted actions than in a scripted lecture. As the game continues through its early access period, its success will likely depend on how effectively these systems can continue to provoke thought without breaking the player's immersion in the simulation.
